Graphics Don't Matter

Dave Long writes "My column at GamerDad features some musing on how unimportant graphics are becoming to enjoyment of games. Everything looks great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a game box. There's some historical context and speculation on next-gen consoles and graphics' effect on consumers." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to photo-realism, but I just don't care. The games shown don't look markedly better than anything from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the movies now' kind of way but the graphics aren't changing gameplay in any way that I can see. It just makes old types of gameplay look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore technology and this incessant need to replicate the real world, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually buy the new consoles myself and be at least modestly excited at the graphics, but I've just grown so accustomed to things looking nice on current machines that there's no 'wow' factor anymore."

Comments

Well...

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Better is... better.

Gran Turismo 4 is light years beyond the original Gran Turismo. If I was a late adopter, I would be WOW'd (BIGTIME) in moving from a PS1 (Gran Turismo 1) to PS2 (Gran Turismo 4).

I imagine the same thing will happen, in time, with the new generation.

Because we are video game addicts, we (I assume the poster is like me, in being somewhat addicted to getting my favorite latest games) are constantly upgrading, and getting the latest release, etc. GT1 - GT2 - nice difference. GT2- GT2, really nice difference. GT3-GT4, somewhat nice difference (read: difference==improvement).

But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.

Now use the above analogy with any of your favorite games. Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2? Huge.

Grand Theft Auto 1 vs. Vice City/San Andreas? Unbelievably huge difference.

In 2 or 3 years when the best of the best come out for the next gen consoles, it will blow the pants off whatever came out in the early months of the current generation consoles, IMHO.

Re:Well...

[harrkev]

Perhaps, but look at it this way...

Take GT4. Reduce the polygon count by 1/2. Reduce the resolution of the textures by 1/2. Does it harm the game in any way? Perhaps, but not by much. It would still have the same game play. If you crash into a tree, it can have "blob" for the foliage on top, instead of rendering each individual leaf. But it is still a tree, and you still go boom.

Let me put it another way. Would you like to play a beautiful ultra-high-eye-candy version of Daikatana? Me neither.

You need a certain amount of graphics for game play. Anything above that is icing on the cake. But there has to be cake (game play). All icing and no cake is yucky (boring). Solid cake with even a little icing is still good.

Re:Well...

[LilBlackDemon]

Unfortunately, "newer" is not always "better," even if they are different generations. For example: - SimCity 2000 is deeper and more involved than 3000 - Tomb Radier continually gets worse with each iteration - SWAT4 is much more simplified than SWAT3 - The original UT is still the msot fun - Half-Life 2 wasn't that much better than the first game, except for the driving sequences Personally, the game I'd love to play is a serious infantry simulation, with an accurate aiming model (no reticule, only blind shooting or irons ights), damage model, and people who play. Unfortunately, the closest thing is Infiltration for UT, and not too many people play that anymore.

Re:Well...

[amliebsch]

Personally, the game I'd love to play is a serious infantry simulation, with an accurate aiming model (no reticule, only blind shooting or irons ights), damage model, and people who play

Have you tried out America's Army? Seems to fit the bill, and it's free-as-in-beer to boot.

Re:Well...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2?

What about FF VI (III in the US) vs. FF VII?

Re:Well...

[bluprint]

However, I think the best statement in the article was "diminishing returns". In case someone doesn't know what that is, it's when each incremental input, returns marginally less.

For example, lets give a rating to graphics, just to be able to quantify it. So, if you go from the earliest games to the next gen, lets say graphic quality goes from a 1 to a 2. The overall game play/quality benefits lets say by jumping from a 5 to a 10 (all other things being equal). Then lets say you move the graphics from a 2 rating to a 3. The gameplay benefits by moving to a 14. Same graphical improvment, but only 4 points of gameplay improvment this time.

I think that was the point of TFA. The graphics are getting better, but the imporovement, at this point, is only having a marginal affect on gameplay. To improve gameplay (which is the ultimate goal), it seems that resources at some point, would be better spent on other factors: overall design, user control, etc.

Re:Well...

[grumbel]

### But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.

Its for most part simply a technical improvment, more polys, better textures, etc., from the gameplay point of view they are basically the same, still can't crash my car, still can't drive in multiplayer vs CPU oponents and such. And heck, if I don't use my glasses they even look pretty much the same. There still might be a WOW effect, but that doesn't hold for long, at least for me, since the underlying game is still basically all the same.

There is basically only one point I still care about 'better' graphics and that is framerate. Some of those SNES SFX-Chip, N64 or Playstation games simply have lousy FPS in the 10-20 range, which just sucks quite a bit for action games. So yes, I would love to have a Stunt Racer FX with 60FPS, but thats it, more polys and textures might be nice to, but they wouldn't add any to the gameplay, more fps however do.

When I compare ResidentEvil1 vs ResidentEvil1-Remake for example the Gamecube part looks a whole lot better then the PS1 part, but once you play for a while, they feel pretty much the same. I would even go so far to say that the PS1 part plays better, since the Gamecube part is quite a bit less thrilling and atmospheric. Not sure exactly why, might be the different background sound, the lack of B-movie feeling, the different voice acting or the sometimes badly places cameras. But more polys didn't really make a better game.

The last game that really got me 'WOW' was OperationFlashpoint and not because it was graphically so more shiny then the rest, but because it allowed me to do stuff that no other game had allowed before.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference you are overlooking though... Essentially that when I played GT1, I said "yeah, this looks great, but there is a huge room for improvement." When I played GT2, I said "wow, this is better, but there is still a ton of room for improvement". After GT3, I said "holy shit this looks awesome, its practically real!"... IE it hit "the close enough to real" mark. GT4 came out, and there was a great deal of small improvements, but we are talking about much more evolutionary stuff- I was in no way wowed by what I saw. Games today just look so good that its going to be difficult to make them look better- they would have to look better than real life.

I really doubt that the GT4- GT7 hop is going to be seen as great as the GT1-GT4 hop. If I am wrong, I will be quite happy to eat my own words.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your icing and cake metaphor is inapt in my opinion. I think a better comparison is to movies. Many components go into making a good movie, writing, directing, cinematography, acting, score, etc. All of these have some impact on the final product. Saying that graphics aren't important to video games seems akin to saying that cinemetography isn't important for movies.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you've never eaten icing right out of the container?

Re:Well...

[wed128]

it seems to me that at this point depth is where game designers should be heading. I like the sense of scale that is convayed by the previews for Spore, for instance. Or perhaps the could bring something of a microsoft flight simulater to a console, with an acurate landscape patched together from actual sattalite photos. That's the only place i can see gameplay improving at this point. To tell you the truth, current generation graphics are about there. We really need bigger, more detailed maps, more in game freedom, more drivable vehicles, more weapons, more innovative game concepts (thinking animal crossing). Also, more customization.

Re:Well...

[Soul-Burn666]

Accurate aiming model?
I've only been to basic military training and I aim better than the soldier in the game.
Specifically I refer to the fact that the soldier in the game can't breath correctly. For some reason he keeps wobbling around instead of going back to the same position, at least after exhaling all air.
When I realized that, I said fuck this and never touched it again.

Re:Well...

[jclast]

In all honesty, VI (and IV for that matter) is prettier than VII. As a matter of fact, in terms of graphical beauty, I think the entire previous generation should be skipped.

SNES and Genesis graphics (although 2-D) looked better than most N64 and PSX titles. There are some graphical gems in there, but does anybody seriously think that VII's blocky 3-D graphics are easier on the eyes than VI's 2-D detailed graphics?

Video game makers didn't get 3-D right until the current generation for the most part*. Look at Castlevania. Stories aside, Lament of Innocence for PS2 looks and controls better than Castlevania 64, and not until FF X did we get true (and populated...anybody else remember the barren 3-D "world" maps?) 3-D environments in an FF. The previous generation couldn't handle all the data and look good doing it.

* Mario 64, and just about anything by Rare for the N64 excepted. Even Zelda wasn't quite ready for the transition for 3-D, in my opinion. Wind Waker was a much smoother experience (regardless of what anybody thinks of the graphical style, the 3-D was done better).

Re:Well...

[Drgnkght]

No, movies are different. A movie is all about watching. It's entirely passive. There's no gameplay, or control, in a movie. Everything you listed goes into making the audio and visual elements of it. A game on the other hand is also interactive. If that interactivity is sub-par the game will fail regardless of the quality of the graphics and sound. Consider the games Pac-Man, and Tetris. Immensely popular, but neither had particularly stellar graphics. How about Sword of Sodan? For it's time the graphics were very good, but that was all it had going for it.

Re:Well...

[Pxtl]

Definitely, deminishing returns is a big thing I've noticed. After all, right now the big buzzword on the last generation of engines was normal mapping. Now, I played UT2k4, and I played old UT and Q3 a lot.

90% of the time, UT2k4 looks the same as the old games but with bigger maps (comes from hybridizing the engine into partially landscape-based) and higher detail. I don't see normal maps. Very rarely do I see sexy reflections. In a fast-paced FPS, you get up close enough to really notice the high-res normal-mapped textures on the players maybe once in a blue moon.

I really don't see why any engine needs to move graphically beyond the level of Quake 3 (other than just pushing more polys). I mean, Doom 3's lighting was cute, but the rest of the innovation was mainly noticeable in cutscenes which would just be prerendered on an older engine anyways.

I mean yes - you can see the difference in up-close screenshots in all of these cases.... but in a fast-paced action game, how often are you going to get a long, hard, up close look at an enemy?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, the game I'd love to play is a serious infantry simulation, with an accurate aiming model (no reticule, only blind shooting or irons ights), damage model, and people who play.

Red Orchestra.

Re:Well...

[AaronLawrence]

Agreed. The one thing I do want from UT200x is more draw distance - it's tiresome to have your view blurred out at (what looks like) 1km or so. Even original UT didn't do that.

Re:Well...

[Mostly Monkey]

I experienced the same thing. While going through some older RPGs on the PS1 I couldn't help but notice how much better FF4 (jp) looks then Xenogears. The psudo 3d was more of a distraction then the crisp colors of the 2d game.

I just seem to enjoy the graphics of generations before and after the ps1 more then the ps1. For me, 20 years from now most of the current gen games are still going to look great. Of course there will always be a demand for more detail, but it looks like we've finally reached a minor plateau where designers can sacrifice realism for artistic flair. (Cell shading etc) How much more detail is really needed in anime inspired stuff anyways?

(On a side note, I kinda got a kick out of the PS2 emulating a PS1 game which was emulating a SNES game) I wonder how many more levels of emulating future or past games may be capable of.)

Re:Well...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Better is... better.
Yes. But Better graphics != Better

But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.
Graphically yes, but you are in fact playing almost exactly the same game, just with different and more shiny cars. When is the innovation.(I am aware that shinier cars are in fact the primary reason people buy GT games)

Now use the above analogy with any of your favorite games. Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2? Huge.
Indeed. However I will still submit, as will many others, that FFVII is a better game than FFX-2, or indeed FFX itself.

Grand Theft Auto 1 vs. Vice City/San Andreas? Unbelievably huge difference.
Exactly. The GTA series has gone up and up. Are graphics the reason for this. No. Sure the move to 3D was nessesary, but beyond that what rockstar have done is add more and more content. they have innovated, not rennovated graphics.

In 2 or 3 years when the best of the best come out for the next gen consoles, it will blow the pants off whatever came out in the early months of the current generation consoles, IMHO.
Great, better graphics. Then why do I have the feeling that the lineup on next-gen consoles will be less impressive than the current offerings?

Primary example of how better graphics != better gameplay. Spiderman 2. Bravo to the developers. they toned down the graphics and in return gave us a far superior game than the original on the PS2. if they had fallen into the rut of, "games MUST have better graphics or they won't sell" we'd never have gotten the genius that was swinging across manhatten, from rooftop to street, with no loading times. Kudos.

I for one, will take better gameplay over better graphics 10 times out of 10. Graphics are like good look. It's nice for your lover to be stunning, but most of us are ultimately happier with an average looking person with a great personality.

Re:Well...

[Cornflake917]

Red Orchestra for ut2k5?

i haven't played that one in a while though...

Re:Well...

[dewfish]

As a GT addict (I own all of the GT games and usually buy them the first day they come out), shiny cars are not the primary reason for buying the game. The graphics definitely get better with each game, but I usually buy them because no other racing game has such a wide variety of cars and tracks. GT4 is definitely the best of the series so far, even though I would prefer even smarter AI (they have made it a little smarter than in past games, but still pretty predictable). They could have left the nitrous oxide out as well, I don't want to play Need for speed or some game trying to be fast and the furious. Just saying as a GT fan, there are a lot more things I get the game for instead of graphics.

I agree

[samael]

It's not that I don't like teh shiny, but the shineness of new games doesn't outclass the last generation enough to make that much of a difference to me. Nowadays I'm much more interested in physics and AI (and, of course, the gameplay).

It's like the difference between 5-speaker surround sound and 8-speaker surround sound. Yes, I can tell. No, I don't really care.

Give it 5 more years until it's really photorealistic, then the difference will matter to me.

Re:I agree

[It doesn't come easy]

Ah, but to show really believable physics you need the ultra high quality graphics capability.

I have always felt this way

[pthor1231]

I mean, just look at games like Final Fantasy 7. It had a great story, the people looked retarded. Didn't stop me from playing the hell out of it. IMHO, developers focusing too much on graphics actually makes a game suck, because they don't put enough effort into making the game have a compelling story, or, for that matter, making the game long enough to justify a pricetag of 50 dollars (or more). Just look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Fable, God of War. These were all good games with pretty cool graphics, but they were just flat out too short for what it should have been.

Re:I have always felt this way

[jclast]

Of your list, I've only played Sands of Time, but I felt my money was well-spent. I'd rather pay for an incredible short game that's fun enough to play more than once than a mediocre long game any day. We don't all have 40+ hours to devote to video games. I'd like to, but I'm much more prone to pick up a Sly Cooper nowadays than take my chances on an epic because I have a life outside of gaming. I want fun, I want attractive, and I want the gameplay to be rock solid. Sands of Time definitely delivered that for me. And while I'm making a wish-list, more games need good co-op multiplayer. My fiancee likes to play with me, not against me. So far, we've had more fun with X-Men Legends than any game featuring death match.

Re:I have always felt this way

[Sylver Dragon]

This, as with anything about gaming, comes down to individual tastes. Personally, I though FF7 sucked. Of course, I though every FF game after the first one (US) pretty much blew to some extent. The gameplay was repeditive, the stories unimaginative, and the dialog way too melodramatic.
Plus, the 40+ hours of gameplay usually involved 20+ hours of watching the same spell animations over and over and over again without any way to skip them. And, <insert diety here> forbid you die after watching a long FMV clip, as you would get to sit through it again.
On the other hand God of War and PoP:Sands of Time both had good stories, that weren't drawn out to the breaking point to fill time. The action remained consistently good, without the need to stop and level to beat the next boss. And, the dialog in both didn't feel insulting to my intellegence. Yes, you could beat either in a fairly short amount of time, but the quality of the game was consistenly high. And that is something I appreciate. I'd rather have a 10 hour game that was consistently good than a 90+ hour epic that drags at many points.
Also, like other posters have said, I have a life. I work, attend classes, and try to have some fun which doesn't involve electronic devices. I have neither the time nor inclination to devote that much effort to a game. I need something I can play for a few hours, leave alone for a month, and then pick up and play again without difficulty.
This is all, of course, just my opinion, and every person will view this differently. If you like the RPG epics, then great, buy and play them, but there are many of us that don't care for them, for us God of War, and the Prince of Persia series are perfect.

To a point..

[grub]

.. ala zork, etc, but some games are built around graphics. Imagine Doom3 without graphics and a Zork like interface:

You are in a large room covered in blood. To the right a Revenant is watching you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
The Revenant falls mortally wounded to the ground.

Weeee!

Re:To a point..

[pthor1231]

ala the first frame of this comic

Re:To a point..

[RealityMogul]

Man that looks like an awesome game. Where can I download it?

Seriously, I grew up on those types of games. I still go looking for BBS systems I can telnet into once in awhile, to play BRE, SRE, LORD, and TW.

Re:To a point..

[Miffe]

There was once a text adventure version of Doom2 called Doom2D. But I can't seem to find it anymore.

It's even gone from Doomworld

Re:To a point..

[KDR_11k]

Except a Revenant goes down in two rockets (and spends more time shooting at you than running towards you) in Doom 3 but I guess details like these don't matter.

Re:To a point..

[Ford Prefect]

Man that looks like an awesome game. Where can I download it?

I think the text-adventure port of Doom 3 is still languishing in development hell, but there's always Interactive Fiction Quake, although the graphics admittedly aren't quite the same...

Re:To a point..

[Ateryx]

My point exactly. I currently own 5-6 consoles, and have spent more time lately playing older games than my newer ones. Why? Perhaps its for nastalgic value, perhaps I'm shitfaced and can only mentally handle a game I've been playing for a third of my life--but I think it goes beyond that.

With gameplay, whenever someone says "Oh man, ____ was so much better back in the day" if all of the particles in the universe were pixals, that still wouldn't be enough for the rolleyes image I want to post. For example, I think post-grunge rock (~95-99) was some of the best pop music in my life. When I think of the artists, I don't think of the stupid "I'm with the DJ" song or Spice Girls. I think of Blind Mellon, Weezer, Silverchair, and some even more pop music I'm embarrassed to admit.

You replay games with the best gameplay. I don't even own 5 xbox games, I don't even own 10 ps2 games. I do own all the great NES, SNES, Dreamcast, etc. games because there have been more and a longer time to figure out which ones are the best. Whenever I think of those systems as ultimate and how gameplay has crapped out to just the highest graphics. I go onto my modded xbox and select a SNES game at random. Then I imagine spending $60 on that game and throw up a little in my mouth.

You can't completely discount graphics as 'a mere exciting blip to amazing gameplay' because it goes beyond. Myst, HL/HL2, are all great examples of when graphics make a difference. The gameplay is great, but they're still just one of a giant genre and graphics helped them stand out.

Re:To a point..

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

LORD? Take a look at Legend of the Green Dragon. It's supposed to be based on LORD (I don't know, I've only played LotGD). Oh, and it's open source PHP.

And if you do decide to play, you might want to look at other servers, if you think the main server has too many players.

And I almost forgot -- you can control the game almost entirely by keyboard alone. See those underlined letters in the menu to the left? Just type C, for instance, to Create a character.

Re:To a point..

[Rallion]

You know what? I think that would be better.

Doom 3 is the ultimate example of graphics not mattering. They spent so much time on the graphics engine that they forgot to make their game fun.

Re:To a point..

[RealityMogul]

Thanks, work was really dragging today ;)

Re:To a point..

[doctormetal]

Doom 3 is the ultimate example of graphics not mattering. They spent so much time on the graphics engine that they forgot to make their game fun.

That is indeed true. Doom 1 and 2 were fun to play, doom 3 wasn't. The graphics look better, but the feeling of the first two games is gone.

Re:To a point..

[IntergalacticWalrus]

What about imagining Zork with graphics and a Doom3 like interface?

Re:To a point..

[WWWWolf]

Well, they already did Q1 E1M1 as a text adventure, and, in my humble opinion, if you forget the slightly sarcastic tone in it (after all, this was made as an April Fools joke)...

As you enter the West portal room, the words "THIS IS THE FIRST EPISODE: DIMENSION OF THE DOOMED" materialize in front of you. After briefly panicking slightly, you continue, when all of a sudden the words, "THE MYSTICAL PAST COMES ALIVE..." pop up. Carefully, doing your best not to trip any more mystery words,you tiptoe your way into the room.

...the game's action is quite faithful to the original, with insightful commentary as well - it was heck of speedier and thrilling than most of the text adventures I've played, and a lot of fun too:

A grunt is standing here, armed with a shotgun and looking rather surly.

The Grunt's shotgun nicks your leg, hitting you for 5 points. It won't kill you,but you'd really rather it not happen again.

>attack grunt with shotgun
You hit the Grunt taking off 10 from his health.

The Grunt's shotgun wounds your torso for 20 points.

>attack grunt with shotgun
You hit the Grunt taking off 10 from his health and killing him. Move over, Thresh.

[Your score has just gone up by two points.]

graphids DO matter

[alvinrod]

... but just not in the way that most people think.

Will it make any difference to me if each individual drop of water in a waterfall is individually rendered and given its own physics? No. But will it matter if the waterfall doesn't look like a real waterfall or doesn't seem to fit? Yes.

It's not about how photorealistic something looks, but whether or not the art style used enhances the game by making you feel as if you're there. After a certain point, the graphics won't get any better. We'll be able to pump out more polygons than we know what to do with. Game designers need to use them to create a world that we can immerse ourselves in.

For example, I absolutely love the graphical style used in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. The world I'm exploring feels so much deeper than Halo 2's. Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 has excellent graphics, but they just weren't used to design the same type of rich world that Metroid has.

Re:graphids DO matter

[amliebsch]

I agree with you, and both agree and disagree with the article. I think there needs to be an aknowledgement that there are fundamentally two different kinds of games.

The first kind is non-immersive; it either requires the use of imagination (e.g., text-based games) or doesn't attempt to immerse the player at all (e.g., Tetris.) For these kinds of games, graphics are irrelevant and gameplay is all that matters.

But there is another class of games, mostly RPG and FPS, that have as their goal total immersion - that the user forget s/he is sitting behind a display device and believes that what s/he is seeing, hearing, interacting with is real. Gameplay is still important here, but graphics are also important, because the better the graphics, the more complete the immersion is.

So I don't think it's fair to categorically state that graphics don't matter, unless you don't believe that immersion is a valid goal of games.

Re:graphids DO matter

[cowscows]

It's also important to realize that realistic graphics are not the only way to create immersion. It's more important to have a consistent art design throughout a game. It's not neccessarily the "realism" of a game that helps me get involved in it. I completely bought into my character in Knights of the Old Republic, despite the fact that in real life I've never flown around on a space ship, I've never played with a light saber, and I usually don't see aliens walking around. None of those futuristic sci-fi things broke the immersion for me, because it all fit in within the universe of the game.

Striving really hard for realistic graphics can actually make things tougher for a game, because the more something becomes like real life, the more we notice the differences. It took Pixar five or six movies before they started focusing on humans as main characters, because inaccurately animated people would look very strange to viewers. The kids in Toy Story look pretty weird to me. And when Pixar did The Incredibles, they exaggerated a lot of features of the people, to make them seem a bit more cartoonish in form and movement, even while texturing them and lighting them to look more realistic.

The whole point of this article is not that graphics don't matter, its just that the graphics are becoming less of a distinguishing feature between any two games, since any game with a good amount of effort put into it should look good. One reason we've seen such a big change in the quality of graphics over the past couple decades is because we were starting from such a simple, crappy beginning. There was nowhere to go but up. And then the big jump from 2D to 3D created a whole bunch of other new growth.

There's just not that much further to go, as long as we're playing games on flat screens.

Re:graphids DO matter

[Rallion]

I draw a distinction between 'graphics' and 'art.' When people say 'graphics,' 97% of the time they're talking about polygons and shaders and whatnot.

Another example to add to your Metroid/Halo comparison:
Everquest 2 has better graphics than World of Warcraft. But it doesn't actually look as good, in a lot of ways, because the art isn't as good.

Re:graphids DO matter

[alvinrod]

It's probably more fair to distinguish between the two, because saying a game has good graphics can be deceiving. Theoretically you could make a simple box with millions of polygons in it, but it still might not be exciting to look at.

Honestly, I believe graphics have a lot less impact on a game than the art style and how you use the graphics does. I really don't care if it has xxx,xxx polygons in it. I want it to look good.

Re:graphids DO matter

[Gothic_Walrus]

It's worth pointing out that there are RPGs and FPSs that don't require the ultra-pretty realistic graphics that you seem to be indicating. In fact, I think I could argue that the graphics really don't matter all that much in either of those genres.

Let's start with RPGs. Paper Mario is a very good game, one that definitely has the ability to pull the gamer in and hold their attention for hours. The graphics there? Very stylized and cartoony, and something that the N64 could pull off very well.

An even better example is the Pokémon games. They've never had anything beyond the most simplistic tile-based graphics...and they're some of the best and most immersive RPGs I've ever played.

Another way to look at it is aging, which gives me some perfect examples for shooters. DOOM, Goldeneye, and the Marathon series are all classics, deservedly, and they aren't because of their graphics. The entire package is great. The graphics are anything but modern, but they're still a ton of fun to play. I still haven't had more fun with a console than I've had with four player Goldeneye.

Besides...if a game's sole selling point is immersion, what's going to happen to it as technology advances and the game becomes less and less impressive?

Doy

[Apreche]

Some people are real gamers. They care about games. These people don't care about graphics, only gameplay.

There are others who are not gamers. They just happen to be people who play or enjoy playing games. These people are often prejudice against games with less graphics and towards those with better.

Just like people who care about movies often go to see movies based on quality regardless of budget, while people who simply enjoy movies see big budget blockbusters.

The key is that the big money is in making the big games with fancy graphics. Because there just aren't that many people who actually care about games as opposed to people who just enjoy them.

Need proof? Play counter strike. You make a lot more money selling some fancy looking piece of poop to those shitcockers than you would selling a balanced work of art to the 100 guys who actually care. Look at the MMOs where you have people addicted to collecting worthless digital items and customizing avatars that look cool, obviously they never played a MUD. And of course, the people who didnt like Wind Waker before ever even playing it based on it's looks. They do realize that at heart it is essentially the same game that Zelda 64 was and the new one is going to be? No, because they aren't real gamers.

Those of us left who ARE real gamers have to stick together. Gotta make sure that quality games keep getting made for us to enjoy regardless whatever fancy graphics crap comes out. I have high hopes for Civilization 4 and the Revolution. Let's see if they can be fulfilled or not.

Re:Doy

[karnal]

shitcockers

Penny Arcade Fan? Or is this the kind of language used in CS? :)

Re:Doy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a PA reference.

Re:Doy

[Anonymous Coward]

So which one of you "real gamers" is going to try and convince me that Pole Position was a better game than MC3 or Burnout 3?

This post was insighful?? You gotta be fucking kidding.

Remember, old school=stuck in the past. Nothing more.

Re:Doy

[Apreche]

Pole Position IS indeed better than MC3 (don't even know what that is) and Burnout 3. And Outrun is better than Outrun 2. Forza, Initial D v3, and Gran Turismo 4 are better than the others.

Just because a game has better graphics doesn't make it a better game. But also, just because a game has worse graphics doesn't make it a better game either. A better game is a better game regardless of graphics. For example, Virtua Racing is better than any of the Need for Speed games, but not better than the above mentioned.

Amazing, but not pretty

[LKM]

I couldn't agree more. Many of the newer games look amazing, but they aren't pretty. They look real, but they don't look nice. I love my GBA for its hand-drawn sprites, and I'm very glad that Nintendo won't simply let the GBA die now that the DS is out. I remember that about 10 years ago, game magazines would print graphic ressources of games. One magazine had all sprites from Turrican, a shooter for the Amiga. There were about 20 hand-drawn graphics that showed every frame of the main guy while running. Nowadays, people don't care anymore. Frankly, I can't even tell all those WWII-Games apart. They all look the same.

I'm not saying that you can't do pretty graphics in 3D. The Wind Waker had some stunningly beautiful graphics. I simply think the mainstream game market doesn't care anymore. As long as it looks realistic, it's a go.

Well, sure.

[Short Circuit]

That's why I look forward to the addition of the PPU.

This is exactally what I have been saying

[owyn999]

For like the past week or so I pesonally see that yes graphics are just about to the Picture quality that I see on a regular basis so really how much further can we go... I can see very little difference between what I recently played in Like Tony Hawk UG2 and like what was shown for the X360 and well I would say that there is alot going on with the PS3 but those were Pre-Rendered and weren't even running on their new GPU. Recently I have been noticing that the gameplay is going stale I dunno maybe it's just what is what sells here in the US or maybe it is just a general lack of creativity. Sure the box is pretty but how is the ring inside of it. Half-Life 2 for example had an attempt at a story line but it wasn't quite finished and wasn't quite what I expected. Now recently I have played a few games that have good storylines but most of those have been RPG's or old games brought back to life. What we need is some fresh blood in the development houses. Heck Heroes of Might and Magic was one of the last games that had an involved storyline that I played. Maybe I'm just nostalgic but I think that things are just getting boring. I like shooting things as a it's after work and I wanna shoot things for a while to blow off steam. But for the weekends when I have a few hours I want an immersive storylined game that will draw me in for those hours. Something that makes me wanna go 5 more minutes dear.

Put another way.... :)

[HRbnjR]

All women look great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a dating profile. There's some historical context and speculation on younger womans' effect on men." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to super-models, but I just don't care. The girls shown don't look markedly better than any woman from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the porn movies now' kind of way, but the looks aren't changing lifestyle in any way that I can see. They just make my traditional lifestyle look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore beautiful women and have this superficial need to be with the best looking woman, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually date these younger women myself and be at least modestly excited at their looks, but I've just grown so accustomed to the nice looking women of the current generation that there's no 'wow' factor anymore.

Physics is the new graphics

[Marc_Hawke]

"Great Graphics" have dimished returns lately, just like he's saying.

What's 'cool' now is "Great Physics." We have the 'visual' physics, with rag-doll deaths etc. Then we have the gimmick/puzzle physics that you saw in HL2. But at times, there is the essential gameplay type physics.

As graphics level off, the 'cool' games will start bulletting physics as their glitz and glamour..until that becomes an almost perfect simulation as well. I wonder what will be next.

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[FLAGGR]

Whats next? WHATS NEXT YOU SAY! virtual reality! BOO YEAH! Matrix here I come!

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[Rallion]

I wonder what will be next.

Smell-o-vision!

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next? Actual gameplay I hope.

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[wheany]

Yes! Please oh please some one finally make a playable game! I mean NES has been out since, what, 1982? All this time developers have been focusing solely on graphics, and lately on physics. Maybe in the year 2006 we will finally have a game that is fun.

Oh god these twenty years have been horrible...

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I meant. Gameplay hasn't really evolved in any meaningful form since the days of Doom. Physics puzzles are all well and good, but they might as well be the same old lock and key puzzles with some extra graphical prettiness (and physical physics-ness) thrown on top.

Re:Physics is the new graphics

[Vraeden]

I'd say that with games, physics and graphics were together at first.

You take pac man over to that dot and that dot is gone. For a while, graphics and physics diverged. You could see something in a game but never interact with it. It wasn't really there, such as the art work in most 2d side scrollers. Or the coordinates for your foot weren't the same as you saw, such as many 3d games.

I think we're seeing the possibility of bringing those two parts back together. I hope so honestly. Physics is the core of the gameplay. Graphics are just your visual avenue to that gameplay.

Unrealistic, should be...

[Shazow]

Imagine Doom3 without graphics and a Zork like interface:

You are in a large room covered in blood. You can't see anything.

> use flashlight
You take out your flashlight which reveals a Revenant. The Revanent runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You can't shoot with a flashlight. The Revenant runs towards you.

> use rocketlauncher
You put away your flashlight and take out your rocket launcher. The Revanent runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revanent. You miss. The Revenant runs towards you.

> shoot revenant
You shoot a rocket at the Revanent. You miss. The Revenant runs towards you. You are hit from behind.

> turn south
You turn south. You see a Revanent. The Revanent hits you. You are hit from behind.

> run west
You bump into a Revanent. The Revanent hits you. You are hit from the left. You are hit from the right. You are hit from behind. You fall mortally wounded to the ground.

> fuck
You cannot use your reproductive organs while dead.

Weeeee!

- shazow

Re:Unrealistic, should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds even more fun than the real Doom 3 to me. Everything about that game sucked EXCEPT it's amazing graphics.

Graphics still make me go WOW!

[kjkeefe]

I played Ultima Online for about 7 years. So I was used to playing a game without killer graphics for a long time. My thoughts were the same thing as the poster, gameplay is all that matters.

Well, I recently began playing World of Warcraft because I am sick of how bad UO has gotten. After playing WoW I realize just how much I was missing! There have been times in game where I was climbing a mountain and when I got to the summit and looked out into a valley I literally vocalized, "Wooooow...". It was almost a gut reaction and afterward I thought to myself, "... that was silly...". But it really does make a difference in how much I enjoy the game. I actually enjoy the beautiful views you can find in that game. After playing WoW I am a fervent believer in the "games are art" school of thought. Some of the screen shots from that world are just astonshingly beautiful.

Just the other day I was playing and my (not technology inclined) mother happen to look at my screen and remarked, "Wow, that is really pretty, what is that website?" I explained that actually it was a virtual game world and that I was looking off a boat I was riding watching the sunset.

I believe that you can't have a successful game without well thought out game play, but the artwork is what can make it a masterpiece.

Re:Graphics still make me go WOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words you don't get out enough. (as far as gaming goes)

I haven't seen a single game in probably about 5 years or more that has made me say WOW.

Re:Graphics still make me go WOW!

[dnixon112]

I think the fact that you played UO, with terrible graphics by today's standards, has skewed your view on what is considered amazing graphics. WOW has a nice graphical style, but is hardly considered the cream of the crop for graphics. The fact that you consider WOW's graphics good enough exactly proves the author's point; these days most games have graphics that are good enough, the gameplay is what matters most.

It's time for a Picasso

[fwitness]

The reason Picasso came up with some of the most brilliant art of our time is that his age saw the introduction of the camera. Artists no longer needed to struggle to replicate actual scenes, as the camera did this faster and better. Art needed to evolve to find a new niche. Picasso showed that art need not be about the image itself, but portraying the subject in a more abstract (and some would argue more complete) manner.

Games are going to have to focus on content as we approach photo-realistic real-time rendering. People are not going to buy one game over another because the grass has clearer shiner blades. It's about time too. Bring on the Ico's, Katamari's and Viewtiful Joe's of the future. Let's get back to exploring gaming as interactive entertainment and forget looking at purty images that move.

Re:It's time for a Picasso

[cowscows]

You should talk to Nintendo. They enjoy making games that aren't striving for photo-realism. I just finished Paper Mario for the gamecube. That game combines 2d and 3d in some very silly and purposeful ways. It has the same cartoony, bright art design that all mario games have had, just refined and cleaned up as technology has allowed. It's also a very fun game, so there's that too.

A lot of Nintendo's games are like that, but they aren't the only ones taking a pragmatic approach to visuals. A good example is Blizzard with World of Warcraft. Although the world they've created for that game is complex and detailed, they obviously took a purposeful step away from realism, and instead decided on an art style that worked with the game.

Trying to achieve full out realism in a video game is tough, because you're never going to actually do it. At the end of the day you're just displaying stuff on a flat screen. Besides, if I wanted realism, I'd go outside. I want my video games to take place in a world/universe that I couldn't go to in real life. So why keep trying so hard to make everything look like reality?

Re:It's time for a Picasso

[Anonymous Coward]

> You should talk to Nintendo. They enjoy making games that aren't striving for photo-realism.

They also enjoy beating their franchise properties to death. Seriously, I am sick to death of mario. I don't care how fun the game is anymore. Invent some new cartooney characters. It's really not that hard.

Re:It's time for a Picasso

[fwitness]

Agreed. I love Nintendo, and hope their new tactics succeed. It's time to build some new brands though. The plumber, although tried and true, is tired and through.

Bring on Metroid Pinball.

/me coughs awkwardly

Re:It's time for a Picasso

[rohlfinator]

"They also enjoy beating their franchise properties to death."

Consider this: Had Rockstar released the first GTA in 1985 (when Super Mario Bros. was released) and continued producing sequels at their current rate, there would now be 22-23 Grand Theft Auto games in the series, not counting multiplatform titles and compilation packs.

In a similar situation, the Halo series would be up to 12 titles, and the Madden, Splinter Cell, and Tony Hawk series' would each be 20 games strong.

Granted, Mario has probably starred in upwards of 30 games since his creation, but those games have spanned over at least 10 genres, whereas the previous examples have never strayed from their original genres over the course of the entire series.

You could argue that Nintendo should come up with original characters to star in the tennis, golf, kart, and party games (and I would agree with you), but when Nintendo owns the rights to the most recognizeable character in the world, can you really blame them for using his face on different games? Sonic, Crash, and Spyro were just as "beaten to death" back in their day, but they were never popular enough for anyone to care.

Re:It's time for a Picasso

[fwitness]

Well, yes and no.

Sonic, Crash and Spyro were mostly slapped on bad games to bring in an audience. Nintendo's games are just plain friggin good, regardless of the character. So why not make up some new characters and build a new money-milking franchise?

Art

[dyftm]

Why are graphics seen as a detriment to gameplay? I consider graphcis in games to be art - half life 2 being a prime example. It's a beautiful game. Entirely dismissing a game because of below par gameplay is just as bad as only liking games because of good graphics.

You know what that article need?

[El_Muerte_TDS]

More screenshots. It's only text.

Re:You know what that article need?

[fwitness]

That's because you didn't render yours in gloriusly beautful 24 point true-type font with anti-aliased shadows. Now that my friend, is a good article.

Re:You know what that article need?

[Gothic_Walrus]

New technology? Bah!

I miss the old days. Eight bits, bright colors, slowdown when you start scrolling too much, having to blow on the connectors to get the blasted thing to load...

Now THOSE were articles!

In fact, I still use the old boy. So what if there's no new content? As long as I've got my Walter Mondale, I'll be fine...

Re:Put another way.... :)

[fwitness]

This would be a great point if you were doing an apples/apples comparision.

All women do not look great today. Women (and men for that matter) haven't suddenly *all* become so gorgeus as to have no difference.

A beautiful woman stands out because she is a rarity. The point of the article is that the new consoles are churning out all "beautiful women" and there won't be any non-beautiful women in the newer offerings.

What I've noticed...

[Dehumanizer]

... is that it's not just about how good the graphics are, but about expectations.

For instance, if I had seen PS1-like graphics in the 8-bit era, I'd have drooled. But these days, PS2 / Gamecube / Xbox graphics just don't impress me. The games I like, I like them independently of the graphics, and it's the same with those I don't like.

Some parts from current games *may* impress me, but it's more of a art / landscape thing, not just polygons or effects. For instance, there was a church in Resident Evil 4 which caught my attention, because it was beautiful - not because the game had great graphics, but because it was a beautiful church - if it was a real life one, it would still be a work of art.

If graphics didn't matter...

[chman]

...Why did Sony bamboozle us at E3 with flashy pre-renderings that had nothing to do with what the PS3 would output? And why did MS come out immediately to counter by saying their demos were on alpha kits at about 1/3rd the power of the X360, and would they would get a lot better? Fuck, by the next generation of consoles, one of these guys will have a GPU so powerful it can generate new colours, like fuscheen.

It's basic biology, or psychology, or whatever ology - me wantee sparklie pretty thing. The graphics just have to trigger that part of your brain that overrides rational judgement so you'll be at your local EB in late November drooling over the counter with $400 in your hand.
Graphics matter to games, because they sell the games. And when the games get sold, the developers are allowed out of the cages for a week so they can see their families and get a decent meal.

As for graphics having no bearing on 'gameplay' - are we sure there is nothing in the real world that can't be rendered in a game with a reasonable amount of accuracy? I seriously doubt we've already hit the plateau for that. We haven't seen too many truly deformable landscapes, for example, or even truly deformable models. Surely they would have an impact on the challenge a game has to offer?

Re:If graphics didn't matter...

[over_exposed]

So explain how text- and stick figure-based games like Kingdom of Loathing have over 500,000 players? This and many other games of it's ilk are incredibly popular because the rely soley on game play. Not on shiny polygons.

Re:If graphics didn't matter...

[chman]

Because there's 500,000 people willing to play it?
Meanwhile, Sony announced a few days ago that they have shipped 90 million PS2s and over 800 million games.

Re:If graphics didn't matter...

[snorklewacker]

Kingdom of Loathing appears to be the graphical evolution of ProgressQuest. It even has some of the same classes and items, e.g. the Beer Giant and Filthy Corduroys.

Re:If graphics didn't matter...

[phxbadash]

The deformable landscapes you speak of have more to do with physics than they do graphics, and with the introduction of the PPU's we could start to see this become more and more prevalent. Also improving A.I. is another big challenge in creating new gameplay in new games coming out, and it is not an easy challenge to overcome. Graphics will eventually plateau in I think 2 or 3 more generations of upgrades, and then it will be some time before the abilities are used to there fullest. By that time I believe physics will play an integral part in future games and world-interactivity. I still firmly believe that graphics are important in current and future games but they are only 1 part of the overall equation.

yeah 'cos no one plays

[LewieP]

nethack?

Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[MBraynard]

1) I look for suspension of reality when playing - when you look at a screen and you see something that is CLEARLY a limit of the hardware/software (polygons rather than smooth curves), it harms that suspension of reality. Gameplay is important, but if that's all I wanted, I could play Chess.

2) Any graphical limit is a limit on the designers or the artists ability to bring their vision to full realization. The more advanced graphics become, the better an artist will be able to transfer from the canvas of his mind to your screen. Imagine being limited to just one frequency range in music - and then having more and more added - the difference it would make.

I hope they keep pushing the graphics thing and expect better games because of it.

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[Datamonstar]

... A limitaiton such as the one you speak of is not wholly the artisit's fault, nor is it tje fault of technology. It's the designer's fault for being too broad-sighted to see that every single detailed idea he wants cannot be implemented in one game, or too narrow sighted to see how such ideas might be implemented differently, without running into hardware/software/technological issues. It's also known as compromise.

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspension of reality... By modeling reality in 3D? Oxymoron.

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[MBraynard]

The Matrix looked like reality - hence it was able to suspend it. I should say 'suspension of disbelief.' Imagine what the MAtrix would have looked like with the technology available 20 years ago. Would it have been as good a film? No.

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[Rallion]

While I fully understand your point of view, you're missing something. There is a serious problem with the focus on graphics, and one that's getting much, much worse: Cost. Games these days cost tens of millions of dollars to produce! The biggest reason for this is how vital it is for sales to have great graphics. And then more gets spent on the game, and it becomes even more vital to sell more copies. Ultimately, this can only lead to rising retail prices if it continues. Also, expect lots of developers and/or publishers to stop focusing on things that don't sell as well, like gameplay and creativity. (Hint: EA.)

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[Anonymous Coward]

your karma's been getting fucked... once i get more mod points, you're screwed.

Re:Two Reasons why Graphics are Vital

[PurplePhase]

I don't agree with the AC's vitriol, but I do agree that you messed up your terms BIG time.

Suspension of disbelief is totally the opposite of of suspension of reality.

And in my mind, all the games with the "realistic" graphics have ruined games for me - because I don't want to look at some approximation of reality! If I wanted that I would, um, not play games! I want some expressionism, some life and feeling and style!! World of Warcraft seems to be on the right path, but for most games I prefer having an ancient graphics card so all those damn "realistic" textures, etc., don't have a chance of getting drawn.

I'll say it again, if I wanted real I'd go outside. I play games to have fun, be entertained, and see pretty things.

YMMV,

8-PP

Consider chess

[TheSHAD0W]

Ever play chess with a really elaborate set? Intricately engraved figures with so much fine detail you could scream? Kinda difficult picking out the pieces, isn't it? I really prefer a nice, simple, classical set, where you can identify the piece at a glance.

I think videogames are approaching the same limit. You aren't going to be paying attention to detail when you're actually playing the game, it's at best ignored and at worst a distraction. The best thing for developers to do would be to work at reducing distractions.

Re:Consider chess

[cowscows]

Yup, the graphics really only matter the first time through. Maybe not even the whole way through. I'll ooh and ahh at nice shadows and lights and stuff, but the novelty will wear off quickly. Hopefully there will be a few visual surprises throughout the game, but the higher complexity textures on all the concrete corridor walls ceases to amaze me pretty quickly.

Graphics are good enough that visually, I can get immersed in the game and pretend I'm there. It could be improved upon probably with VR glasses or soemthing that provides me with some peripheral vision maybe, but other than that, it's not the imagery that's keeping me from losing myself in games anymore.

The physics and the AI are the next technical challenge in making games more believable. Of course the game design plays just an important role in this, but that's something that will continue to vary from game to game, no matter how good the technology gets.

Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

And a commercial during the Super Bowl doesn't make your Doritos taste better. But damn if it doesn't sell a lot of Doritos.

Game play is key

[Mr.Dippy]

I've played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night about 7 times now. I played Castlevania: Lament of innocence once and never touched it again. By all accounts of the video game industry I should have loved the newer one because the graphics were in 3D. However, issues with the controls and camera positioning just didn't make it fun after a few hours of play.

Re:Game play is key

[Lyphen]

Style also has appeal, but gameplay isn't everything. No matter how fun "Paratrooper" ( http://www.drewfx.com/promo.htm) might be, I can't imagine myself playing it. I want to be completely pleased, and if my eyes are burning in agony, that can't happen.

People have always felt this way.

[jaredforshey]

When Atari was released, people were amazed by the graphics (I'm sure this point will astound several of our younger readers). Even then, there were people complaining that the graphics really only stood in the way of allowing you to do whatever you wanted to do in the game the way you could in text-based games - as long as you could figure out the syntax!

The real point here is that, since games have had graphics, there have been people that felt the state-of-the-art graphics only got in the way of what they liked about the games they liked previously.

I'm only conjecturing, but I think part of it is that people have a tendency to assume that graphics have pretty much gotten as good as they're going to be for a long time. Even in the atari days people couldn't imagine how the graphics were going to get much better. To say that the games on the upcoming consoles don't look any better than they do on the current consoles is true, but these are just release titles. After developers have had a couple years to unravel all the tricks, we should be seeing amazing things.

To me, graphics don't make the game. But they can certainly go a long way to enhance a game with a solid foundation of gameplay.

Re:People have always felt this way.

[Superfito]

This may have been true for a while but games such as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion looks to disprove that theory. The graphics are incredible but the part that everybody is looking forward to is the freedom that the player will have. The developers have so much power know with the advanced engines, sound, AI and physics that they have been able to create an entire virtual world.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[analog_line]

I agree. My girlfriend doesn't have the latest graphics, but her gameplay is quite good.

Right on!

[slithytove]

I totally agree with you. I have high hopes, though, that with all the half-complete projects by amateurs and small studios, some genuinely new (and really fun) gameplay will emerge. Right now I play Vendetta Online because its an MMORPG that you can have fun in without a lot of treadmilling. Guild Software also gets my 10 bucks a month because they are a tiny, privately owned company run by "real gamers". Their goal is to have a self-sustaining game world where seasoned players make new content, and the revenue they take in goes straight into developer salaries so they can keep adding features. Unlike companies with big publishing deals, they don't follow the release it, rake in the money, move on to the next project model. Its not uncommon to see them in the game, helping big events go smoothly and such.

Oh... and there are Mac and Linux clients!

Eamon universe

[eamonman]

hey, you may find that boring, but that's what Eamon games were all about in the 80's. Designable and editable, it was a pretty fun text adventuring game universe. I remember some even had sound (some Star Wars-based mission had the 'sounds' of lightsabers hitting and missing.) Because of that, I think that's one of the first fun games I played on my Apple IIe. Here's an example of the gameplay:

> ready sword

Ready.

> attack bluebeard

You hit Bluebeard for 14 points of damage.
Bluebeard misses.

You see Bluebeard, knocking on death's door.

> attack bluebeard
You hit Bluebeard for 10 points of damage.
Bluebeard dies.

You see a dead Bluebeard (pirate)

Loads of fun for a nerdy kid in the 80's.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I wouldn't say they were a rarity well maybe i guess it depends on where you live, but where I live I see plenty of beautiful women every day and on top of that you can't even turn on your tv or computer with out seeing them all over the place.. It's gotten so old to me that it's almost a turn off now.

I don't think there is any shortage of beautiful looking games these days either. Nothing really surprises me anymore. I could care less about the graphics. Even so-so graphics by today's standards are still really pretty nice.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Morgon]

I dunno, have you been outside recently?
They really do build them a LOT differently from when I was that age (I'm talking about ~18 year olds - I'm 25 now)

In my graduating class of 1997, there were probably a half-dozen "REALLY FRIGGIN HOT" girls, and a handful of the 'very cute' to 'dateable' variety. Then the rest were 'do-able' to ..... well, let's not be mean and just say "not so do-able".

I have some younger friends in my neighborhood, and their graduating class pretty much looks like something you'd see out of the cast of a new teen drama about California college kids. While we still have the small-ish number "REALLY FRIGGIN HOT" girls, the line is blurred with the number of "Damn hot" and "Cute as Hell" girls all mixed together.

But you're right - it's more of an 'apples-to-melons' comparison, if you get my drift.
Gotta love those dairy hormones.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Solder Fumes]

Hollywood has succeeded in reshaping the way men think about women. Specifically, the idea of what is doable. In old times, it basically came down to two criteria: alive and able to cook. What you're seeing now is the effect of the "not-so-doable" ones, who in fact nobody ever did.

If only it were true

[ClosedSource]

Then we old Atari 2600 programmers could get back in the game.

On the other hand, you can't perform advanced gameplay on the 2600 unless you embed a hard drive in the cartridge.

It's a nice fantasy though.

Re:If only it were true

[kisrael]

Heh. Are you really an old Atari 2600 programmer?

I wrote my own 2600 homebrew game, got it released by AtariAge.com w/ promotional T-shirts and everything.

Anyway, one thing that intrigues me these days isn't advanced gameplay on the 2600 -- its 2600-like gameplay in modern settings, minigames...especially those found in "party" compilations.

Re:If only it were true

[ClosedSource]

Yes, I really am an old Atari 2600 programmer but not a famous one.

Congratulations on completing your game. People like yourself that have written a 2600 game without being paid a salary are amazingly dedicated.

Re:If only it were true

[kisrael]

Well, with emulators and such, its gotten a little easier, plus there's a great support community there. I've tried to add to it with my 2600 101 tutorial and assorted other tools. A decent debugger is still pending, however.

Did you complete a game? Even obscure 2600 games get attention with the community on atariage.com... love to know what it is, even if in retrospect it doesn't feel like your finest programming hour, but especially if it does... :-)

Re:If only it were true

[ClosedSource]

I really don't want to link my real name with my name on Slashdot. If I sent you an email directly would you agree not to reveal my name?

Re:If only it were true

[kisrael]

sure, my email is on http://kisrael.com/

Re:If only it were true

[ClosedSource]

OK. I sent you an email.

Stale

[brkello]

Ahh, is gaming news so stale that all we get are people re-hashing the same old stuff all the time. It's such a dull article. He argues that the graphics aren't any better in the next gen. Then he states that they will be better and he will be excited, but it won't "wow" him. Give me a break.

Graphics are only one piece of gaming. There is this dumb notion on here that enhanced focus on graphics is causing a decline in game play. It's easy to fall in to this trap that stuff in the past was better than it is now. Ever talk to old people? They remember the stuff they did as the best things in the world...like playing kick the can. We tend to remember things better than they were. Games were fun and new...but quite frankly, there were plenty of 8-bit games that sucked just as much as our fancy ones suck today. There wasn't more focus on gameplay. There were only 10 people working on the whole game. Now there are 100s of people involved. There are people purely dedicated to the gameplay and purely dedicated to graphics. Having a pretty game does not take focus away from gameplay. Do you think game makers are more naieve then the morons posting on this site? Of course not. There are still awesome games being created and they look pretty too. The only thing that slightly justifies the argument that graphics take away from the game is that the more you stick in to graphics, the less processor you have left for AI. But games from the past didn't use AI..unless you consider a turtle walking back and forth between two pipes something that can pass the Turing test.

It has never been better for games. We have three consoles + PC to choose from. All of them have fantastic exclusive and non-exclusive games. Yes, there are crap games, but there always was crap games. The next generation will be exiting because programmers will be able to have more room to push their games to the limits. Seriously, if graphics didn't matter, there would never had been a need to move off of 8-bits.

Re:Stale

[Rod Beauvex]

Ah, Slashdot. Where Lies and FUD are insightful, and truth is Overated and/or Troll and/or Flamebait.

graphics don't = better games

[Is0m0rph]

Games keep looking better and better but they aren't necessarily getting better. I find my Xbox collecting a lot of dust lately and my Gameboy SP getting played everyday.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Morgon]

You're right, in part - but I still am talking about the fact that younger people are just built different from those just a half-generation behind them.

Maybe not you specifically - but how many people do you know have eyed up a girl in a mall or other store, only to deduce by their peers or the age between her and her parents, that she's a freshman at best?
Sure it's happened basically for decades, if not centuries - but I can guarantee that it's happening probably just as often these days, as it has in the past century, combined.

Two fun games that buck the "uber graphics" trend

[Anonymous Coward]

Katamari Damacy and Lego Star Wars.

They games are all about the steak, and not about the sizzle.

These games rock the house w/o a single tri-linear, bitmap-enhanced, hyper-voxel, dynamic-lit, volumetrically-gyroscoped, online-enhanced for the socially challenged freak in all of us, pixel in sight.

Look at differences

[MentalMooMan]

Take a look at the differences between Doom II and III. 3 certainly has much better graphics, and that definitely helps with the suspension of disbelief, but the gameplay is much the same. People are looking for new types of gameplay.I think UT2004 did this very well; It gave us Onslaught and Bombing Run.

You can have a game with really good gameplay, but bad graphics, and that's okay, but you can also have a game with stunning graphics that has absolutely terrible gameplay, and that's horrible to play.
A good game needs to be fun to play, but immersion is also very, very important. I want feedback-gloves that shake when I fire a weapon, and when I get hit.

Games sell on graphics because that's what the people with the money want, and the people who notice the gameplay are getting annoyed.

I disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are games that you play and games that you experience. Both can be fantastic. Civilization is a game that you play. It doesn't attempt to simulate viscerally the experience of running a nation, so you are mentally distanced from it - you control your armies like a chess player controls chess pieces. It's one of my favorite games ever. It wouldn't really benefit from better graphics. But there's an entirely different kind of experience that immerses you in the game's world and your character. It draws us in through realism, through creating an environment where our actions have consequences and the consequences make sense, and our brains can be tricked into feeling the emotions our characters feel. Graphics are important to that - not necessarily photorealistic ones, but ones that engage you in the world, give it character. In games that attempt to affect you emotionally, sensory elements are of course important. It's snobbish to say that the people who like good graphics are being shallow, because analyzing images is a huge part of the human experience, and there is value in games whose visual style is part of their substance.

Re:Two fun games that buck the "uber graphics" tre

[jclast]

I can't speak for Lego Star Wars, but the graphics in Katamari Damacy were amazing. The sense of scale and size were phenomonal. The models weren't composed of millions of polygons because the individual elements weren't the focus. You were looking at the world as a whole, and KD's engine presented the game world flawlessly. The experience definitely wouldn't have been the same if there were a loading screen every time you needed to zoom out a little.

Good graphics and innovative graphics aren't always about who has the most polygons or the best lighting. Sometimes, they're just about creating the game world properly.

Wrong Wrong Wrong.

[Picass0]

About a year ago I went to a friend's LAN party and they got a wild hair up their butts and decided to play a few rounds of TIE Fighter. Undeniably a great game, but with very dated graphics. After solving a few DirectX issues, we got the game running and free-for-all combat ensued.

The poor graphics spoiled it. We all bitched about how this game screems for an update. We played a dozen rounds and moved onto something else.

You might not notice anymore when a game has great graphics, but you sure as hell will notice when they suck.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Star Stealing Girl]

What you're describing is the sexualization of women at earlier and earlier ages. It's disgusting, really, to see how some 12 year olds feel they have to dress to fit in with their peers. With "role-models" like Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, or Christina Agullaria, girls are increasingly being seen in society as "useful" only if they dress provocatively. Hence, a 12 year old girl today may look like an 18 year old girl 20 years ago because they are dressing in a manner that is not suitable for their age. It's no longer about looking pretty anymore - now it's about looking as trampy as you can to attract the most friends and opposite sex. And yes, the standards we use to judge "beautiful" women today are really making women dress like porn stars, complete with the badly dyed and over-done hair, overdone and heavy makeup, and skimpy tacky clothes.

Very true!

[Soul-Burn666]

I have a "l33t machine". I get good frame rates in Doom3 and such games.
However, the games I enjoyed the most lately are almost all 2D. Specifically FreeDroid, Crystalis (NES), Soul Calibur (DC emu, KEYBOARD > GAMEPAD!!!), Castlevania: Aria Of Sorrow (GBA), Zelda: The Minish Cap (GBA).

Almost all these games are graphically inferior but the gameplay is just awesome. I don't really care if it is technically superior, but I do care if its aestethic and plays right.
Hell, considering Doom3, I enjoyed more playing Doom1 and 2 with a friend in multiplayer on some OpenGL engine for it than Doom3.

I believe Nintendo will hit a trump card with the Revolution. There are so many old and good games and many of them are enjoyable at least like today's games.

Also it seems to be good for open source. Many of the best open source games are simply versions of old classics, and it works well!

Surely it doesn't mean all new games with realistic graphics suck...
Metal Gear Solid 2/3 look great and are good games. Ninja Gaiden looks awesome and has as much gameplay as the old classics.

Re:Very true!

[mparker762]

I got Doom III for the xbox. Spent a few hours playing it, then spent the next few days playing the xbox port of Doom I and II that came with it. Never have made it back to III.

But then, I still spend an inordinate amount of time in nethack and ctetris.

Re:Put another way.... :)

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a girlfriend?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What the hell are you doing here??!?!?!

;-) (this is slashdot after all...)

Fallout 1&2 vs Morrowind

[tdelaney]

Fallout and Fallout 2 were awarded RPGs of the year by some places (esp. Fallout), but most went for Baldur's Gate rather than Fallout 2.

Morrowind was awarded RPG of the year nearly everywhere.

Better gameplay? Fallout (esp. Fallout 2).

Better story? Fallout (esp. Fallout 1).

Better graphics? Morrowind (arguably - I actually much prefer the look of Fallout, but most people would say Morrowind).

Time I've spent playing?

Fallout 1/2: Well over 2000, completing them over 40 times each (longest game over 100 hours).

Morrowind: ~200 hours, never completed it (started many times) because it was impossible to keep track of what I was doing, and it all got boring really quickly.

BTW, I use to play FPS games back in the day of Marathon. These days I get vertigo looking at the screen. Better graphics means I cannot play the game.

Re:Two fun games that buck the "uber graphics" tre

[boot1973]

..games are all about the steak, and not about the sizzle

That's Brilliant.. If i could mod you i would..

But i can't.. Sorry

Truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alot of you might say they graphics don't matter but how many actually beleave that?

What's the first thing you do when you see a new game in the store? Look at the back of the box to see how it looks? Ever bought one you thought looked crap? Did you read the accumpanying text to see what it was about? Or did you just judge the game totally on appearence?

While the game's graphics won't make a crap game good they can make you buy it because (as with women and most things in life) they're judged on their looks first because its the first thing you notice.

Sure you might buy them for another reason, you've played a demo or a friend's copy and seen that a game with poor graphics is enjoyable to play.

Someone brought up MUDs compared to MMOGs now. While WoW and other MMORPGs do have better grahics they aren't the only difference, they're totally different to play and accessable to alot more people because other thier friendlyness to a wider audience. Some people don't enjoy text based games because they can't feel as emerssed in the game as they can if they can see what is going on. Just the same as how some people prefer to watch a film rather than read a book. Lord of the Rings anyone? Come on, who read it? Who's seen the films? See.

Re:Truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea...so you are all saying that you would be completely happy with games with the same graphics as last year....THen you would all be crying that this is just like every game that came out last year. The truth is gamers are a bunch of cheap, whiney complainers, I'm sorry to inform you but its true. If you really wanted a intense brilliant game you wouldnt expect to be playing a mmorpg for no monthly fee or whine when games go up 10 dollars. Come on people. Yea they could make cheap games but that would include 16 color graphics and fast dev cycles. If you really want gaming to go upward, put your money where your mouth is or demand more from publishers. Stop buying crap and actually spend money on good games and stop whining about prices. Oh yea, maybe start paying for your games too instead of getting cracked versions..

Re:Truth?

[jclast]

A couple things. I'm going to answer out of order. I'm sure you'll be able to follow along with me here.

We don't all pirate our games. Piracy isn't the only alternative to climbing game prices. I wait for titles to go Greatest Hits / Player's Choice / Platinum Hits, buy used from EBGames or Gamestop, or trade with others.

Some of us do vote with our wallets. I still haven't bought a PSP or a DS. They're just not worth the money to me yet. As soon as the price drops (assuming it does), I would like to own both. The same applies to games. I'm having a blast with Sly 2: Band of Thieves, but I didn't want to pay $50 for it. Did I pirate a copy? No. I bought a used copy.

I don't play any games I have to continuously buy. World or Warcraft looks great and fun, but I won't play if I have to buy the game and then buy the game again every month. Once again, I've voted with my wallet, and Blizzard isn't getting my money twice. As soon as somebody releases the MMO for free, I'll consider paying a monthly fee to play.

We don't all need flashy graphics. My absolute favorite game from the current generation of consoles is Disgaea for the PS2. Aside from some of the special move effects, I'd bet the battle system and maps could have fit on a single PSX CD. I've easily put over 100 hours into that game, and it's definitely not the graphics that hooked me. It was the gameplay.

All that being said, I won't be buying any new games for $60 - $65. I'll buy them when the prices drop or I'll buy them second-hand. Who among us, regardless of hobby, isn't cheap? Do you really love your hobby so much that you blindly throw money at it? What about the next generation of games warrant a $10 - $15 price increase? I haven't seen anything. Is the PS3 or XBox 360 really that much harder to program for? If not, I see no reason for game prices to rise just because we're on the cusp of a generation change.

Re:Truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not exactly what I was getting at.

Graphics don't make the game but they do sell it. There's ALOT of classics / retro games that are much more fun to play than any number of modern games with flash graphics but if they were released as new games in todays market they wouldn't sell. People go out and buy todays games based on graphics more than anything else.

Take the new E3 videos as an example. It gets people really looking forward to what's coming but very little game play was shown.

One of my fears as the industry moves forward is that this could spiral out of control (if it hasn't already). Alot more time and effort is being put into how games look. But not so much on how they play, and its only the customer that are to blame.

may we be reminded of things past

[SlugabedGamer]

If anybody out there has read into or was around for the "video game crash" of the early 80's, you know it was there for one main reason: development was easy enough that people could flood the market with games that were just like all the others. Nothing new or fun was made, and people got tired of the same sorry crap, sequels, remakes, and ripoffs, and just quit buying games. Enter: Nintendo, with innovation, creativity, and most of all, fun gameplay. I personally believe that gaming will reach a near-crash again. Development isn't as easy as it used to be, but as companies get bought out and games becomes more distributed, more and more generic FPS, sports, racing games, crappy sequels, and generally weak titles will come out. Then Sony and Microsoft will both be in trouble as they're both probably going to be losing money on their consoles to get market share. After they flood the market and people get tired of just another Halo, Half-Life, EA sport game, generic fighter, and other sequels, they will seek innovation and fun, despite any graphics inferiority. Enter: Nintendo.